Libel and Slander

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares199 Views

    Idaho Drag Performer Wins Over $1.1 Million in Defamation Suit Against Blogger

    by

    The jury unanimously sided with the performer in a case against a blogger who made false claims that the artist had exposed himself to a crowd at a pride event in 2022.A drag performer in Idaho won more than $1.1 million in damages on Friday in a defamation lawsuit against a blogger who falsely claimed that he had exposed himself to a crowd that included children at an event two years ago.The jury unanimously decided that the blogger, Summer Bushnell, had defamed the artist, Eric Posey, when she claimed in videos and comments online that Mr. Posey exposed his genitalia while dancing onstage during a pride event in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, even though he had not. It awarded Mr. Posey $926,000 in compensatory damages for defamation and another $250,000 in punitive damages, according to his lawyer, Wendy J. Olson.“Can this guy be arrested for exposing his genitals to minors?” Ms. Bushnell wrote in one Facebook post, according to Mr. Posey’s complaint. Mr. Posey claimed that Ms. Bushnell’s online viewership soared as a result of those posts, while he “was exposed to hatred, contempt and ridicule.”In an interview, Ms. Olson said that Ms. Bushnell’s false claims about Mr. Posey had a profound effect on his social life, employment prospects and mental health. “He was called names and racial slurs. He was harassed. He really shut down, emotionally,” she said.Ms. Olson added in a statement that the verdict and the damages sent “the clear message that truth matters, that facts matter, and that you can’t dehumanize and damage someone to suit your own purposes.”In recent years, far-right activists have increasingly targeted drag shows across the country. Protesters and conservative commentators have accused drag performers of targeting children, which has in many cases prompted angry demonstrations, harassment, abuse and threats of violence against drag artists. Some Republican-led states, including Florida and Tennessee, have sought to restrict the performances, though federal judges have not always been receptive to those efforts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Schneider Sues ‘Quiet on Set’ Producers for Defamation

      by

      In the suit, lawyers for the former Nickelodeon producer called the documentary a “hit job” that had falsely painted him as a “child sexual abuser.”The television producer Dan Schneider filed a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday against the creators of the documentary series “Quiet on Set,” which aired accounts of sexual abuse and other inappropriate behavior on sets at Nickelodeon, where Schneider was once a star creator of content.The five-episode series, “Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV,” included interviews from former employees who denounced Schneider as a boss and objected to sexualized humor in his shows, leading him to release a video in March in which he apologized for some of his behavior on the job, such as soliciting massages on set from staff members.But the show also focused on Nickelodeon employees who had been convicted of child sex crimes — including Brian Peck, a dialogue coach for Nickelodeon, who was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing the “Drake & Josh” star Jared Drake Bell.Schneider’s lawsuit accuses the documentary of improperly conflating him with those who had been convicted of abusing children and took issue with segments of the series that his lawyers said “falsely and repeatedly state or imply that Schneider is a child sexual abuser.”“Schneider will be the first to admit that some of what they said is true,” the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, said of the filmmakers. “At times, he was blind to the pain that some of his behavior caused certain colleagues, subordinates and cast members. He will regret and atone for this behavior the rest of his life. But one thing he is not — and the one thing that will forever mar his reputation and career both past and present — is a child sexual abuser.”Schneider declined to be interviewed for the series, instead issuing a statement that was included in the documentary, in which he denied various accusations leveled against him and said that “everything that happened on the shows I ran was carefully scrutinized by dozens of involved adults.”The listed defendants in the case include Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns Max, where the series was streamed; Maxine Productions and Sony Pictures Television, which produced it; and Mary Robertson and Emma Schwartz, who directed the series. None of the parties immediately responded to a request for comment.Calling the series a “hit job,” the lawsuit said that in several instances viewers were led to inaccurately infer that he was a child sexual abuser, including in the trailer, in which a series of photos and video clips of Schneider are followed by the advertisement of a “true crime event.”“The harm to Schneider’s reputation, career, and business, to say nothing of his own overwhelming emotional distress, cannot be understated,” said the lawsuit, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages.The lawsuit said that Schneider’s legal representatives had sent a letter demanding that the series “not include any statements that allege or imply that Schneider engaged in any criminal or sexual misconduct,” and that the defendants’ lawyer responded that there were no “statements” that defamed him.Starting in the 1990s, Schneider created, scripted and produced a string of hits for Nickelodeon including “All That,” “The Amanda Show,” “Drake & Josh” and “Zoey 101.”But in the spring of 2018, Schneider and Nickelodeon suddenly issued a joint statement announcing their separation. Almost overnight, he largely disappeared from public view.In 2021, The New York Times reported that before that announcement, ViacomCBS, the parent company of Nickelodeon, had investigated Schneider and found that many people he worked with viewed him as verbally abusive. The company’s review found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Schneider.The recent documentary series included information about how Schneider and Nickelodeon parted ways, and reported that the investigation into his conduct “did not find any evidence of inappropriate sexual behavior” or “inappropriate relationships with children.”The series was a ratings hit and stirred up conversations about the appropriateness of some of the material on children’s television. Critics said the shows contained barely veiled sexual innuendo, and Schneider, in his apology video, said he would be willing to cut out parts of the show that were upsetting to people, years after they first aired. At the same time, though, he suggested that the criticism came from adults looking at jokes written for children “through their lens.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Sues ABC and Stephanopoulos, Saying They Defamed Him

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News on Monday, arguing that the anchor George Stephanopoulos had harmed his reputation by saying multiple times on-air that Mr. Trump had been found liable for raping the writer E. Jean Carroll.A jury in a Manhattan civil case last year found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll, but did not find the former president liable for rape. The judge, however, later clarified that because of New York’s narrow legal definition of “rape,” the jury’s finding did not mean that Ms. Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”Mr. Stephanopoulos, who was named as a co-defendant, said Mr. Trump was found liable for rape during a contentious interview on March 10 with Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina. During the interview, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Ms. Mace, who has spoken publicly about being raped as a teenager, why she continued to support Mr. Trump in light of the outcome of the civil case.Mr. Trump, who often galvanizes his supporters by attacking the press, has filed a string of unsuccessful defamation suits against major media organizations. Federal judges have dismissed his suits against CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post.ABC News had no comment on Monday. Mr. Trump’s suit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      On Donald Trump, E. Jean Carroll and the Limits of Libel Law

      by

      In the days since a New York jury ordered Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million in damages to the libel plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, the question has been whether the dollar amount was high enough to put a stop to his lies.That we must ask this question tells us something important about the moment in which we find ourselves. And it tells us something important about both the value and the limits of libel law.Doubt about what will come next is well placed. As Ms. Carroll’s lawyers argued, Mr. Trump has bragged of wealth far exceeding this amount. He has publicly resolved to repeat the falsehood “a thousand times.” Indeed, he doubled down on his false claims about Ms. Carroll on social media and on the campaign trail even as the jury was hearing his case.But this “will he or won’t he?” speculation is only the latest data point in a larger, more alarming trend of libel damages simply not seeming to carry the deterrent effect that defamation law presupposes they will have. We have entered an era in which the incentives to serve up lies for politics or profit are so strong that libel damage awards and settlements may not meaningfully change behaviors.Several examples show a stark break from the past. For most of the long history of libel law, a jury determination that material was false and defamatory settled the question, and defendants facing that liability would take every possible step not to repeat the lie — both because it would be socially reprehensible to do so and because the risk of punitive damages was a powerful deterrent unlikely to be overcome by any stronger incentive. In short, libel law used to stop the libel.But recent cases have revealed some defendants who seem motivated to defame even as their assets are depleted or made unreachable to plaintiffs. Rudy Giuliani, who reasserted his defamatory allegations against two Georgia poll workers outside the courthouse as the jury decided his case, filed for bankruptcy just days after he was ordered to pay $148 million for those lies. Alex Jones did the same less than two months after a jury ordered him and his Infowars parent company to pay close to $1 billion for years of lies about the Sandy Hook families. He had used his broadcasts to rail against the suits throughout the proceedings and to seek audience donations to fund them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      E. Jean Carroll Promises to Do ‘Something Good’ With Money Won From Trump

      by

      The writer was awarded $83.3 million for his defamation. Now, she will have to figure out how to use it.As soon as E. Jean Carroll heard the verdict on Friday — $83.3 million in defamation damages against Donald J. Trump — a world of possibility opened before her: How to use the money?The amount vastly eclipsed the $5 million awarded to her by a jury last spring in a different trial against Mr. Trump. It could take years before she sees the money, as Mr. Trump has said he will appeal, but she is already considering how she might use the money once she obtains it.“I’m not going to waste a cent of this,” she said. “We’re going to do something good with it.”Figuring that out will take some time, she added. But she will splurge on one luxury, she said — for her Great Pyrenees and her pit bull. “I’m going to be able to buy some premium dog food now,” she said.Ms. Carroll, appearing relaxed and happy in her lawyers’ offices on Saturday, spoke in her first interview since the Manhattan jury’s award in her favor a day earlier.Ms. Carroll, 80, sued Mr. Trump, 77, for defamation after he called her a liar in June 2019, when she first publicly accused him, in a magazine article, of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room decades earlier. Mr. Trump continued to attack Ms. Carroll, in posts on his Truth Social website that lasted right into the trial, as well as in news conferences and on the campaign trial.After the verdict on Friday, Mr. Trump, issued a new attack on social media: “Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon.” But he avoided criticizing Ms. Carroll, a silence that spoke volumes. Ms. Carroll said she was not ready to assume that the former president was finished with her.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      As Trump Treats Trials Like Rallies, Judges Study How to Rein Him In

      by

      One judge was reluctantly permissive. Another came down hard. Their contrasting approaches may inform the jurists overseeing the former president’s criminal trials.Donald J. Trump doesn’t change. Judges do.Two weeks ago, a New York judge, Arthur F. Engoron, permitted Mr. Trump to personally deliver a closing argument in his civil fraud trial as long as he stuck to the facts and avoided a courtroom “campaign speech.” Mr. Trump bulldozed through the restrictions, repeated his familiar claim of a “political witch hunt” and assailed the judge to his face.Then last week, after a lawyer down the street at the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial complained that Mr. Trump was grumbling “con job” and “witch hunt” loud enough for jurors to hear, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sternly warned him that, although he had the right to be present, “that right can be forfeited — and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive.”Ms. Carroll’s lawyers did not find reason to complain again.The judges’ different approaches to the tempestuous storm that entered their courtrooms — and the different results — could offer lessons beyond the two New York cases. They may provide guidance for the judges set to oversee Mr. Trump’s four potential criminal trials, who will want to keep the 45th president from transforming his legal proceedings into political spectacles.“The thing you’ve got to do primarily is set rules and enforce them,” said John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan. “I think if the judge is tough and doesn’t back down, Trump will back down.”Mr. Trump, 77, often finds himself in courtrooms these days, alternating those appearances with campaign stops — and using both for political purposes as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination. On Tuesday, after attending jury selection in Ms. Carroll’s trial, he flew to New Hampshire to begin campaigning. He then returned to court on Wednesday, when she testified, before heading back to New Hampshire.Judges regularly confront defendants who are powerful public figures, like politicians or chief executives, who are used to dominating a room.But judges, particularly those in federal court who enjoy lifetime tenure, do not easily surrender their authority. Typically, threats of financial sanctions, contempt or even short jail sentences can calm the most unruly of courtroom disrupters.What has made Mr. Trump’s appearances challenging is that he may be making the calculation that disobeying a judge or perhaps even losing a legal argument could be politically advantageous. In Ms. Carroll’s defamation trial, Mr. Trump seemed almost to be goading Judge Kaplan into throwing him out of the courtroom.After his two recent confrontations with the judges, Mr. Trump held news conferences before cheering supporters in the lobby of his building at 40 Wall Street. Standing before a row of American flags, he repeated his themes of personal persecution. He called the state attorney general, Letitia James, who had sued him in the civil fraud case, “deranged” and “a political hack.” A week later, he labeled Judge Kaplan “a Trump-hating guy,” and brushed aside Ms. Carroll’s claims. “I, frankly, am the one that suffered damages,” he said.Donald J. Trump has held news conferences at one of his buildings after his court appearances, at which he claims victimhood.Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty ImagesBoth of Mr. Trump’s Manhattan trials are still pending. There is no jury in Ms. James’s civil fraud case in New York State Supreme Court; Justice Engoron’s ruling on whether Mr. Trump and his company are liable for a $370 million penalty being sought by the state is expected toward the end of this month.Ms. Carroll’s defamation trial is being heard by a nine-person jury in Federal District Court, with Judge Kaplan overseeing the proceedings. The only issue is how much money, if any, Mr. Trump must pay Ms. Carroll, 80, for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of sexually abusing her decades before, and for his persistent attacks in statements and social media.Testimony is expected to continue through at least Monday, when the former president has indicated he might testify.Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has been on the bench since 1994 and runs his court sternly.Jefferson Siegel for The New York TimesJudge Kaplan, 79, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. He is known for his command of the courtroom and, at times, his impatience with lawyers who seem to be unprepared. He has presided over trials involving such boldface-name defendants as Sam Bankman-Fried, the tousle-haired cryptocurrency mogul convicted in November, and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law and adviser to Osama bin Laden whom the judge sentenced to life in 2014.The judge also presided last spring in a previous case that Ms. Carroll brought against Mr. Trump. In that trial, a jury awarded her $5 million in damages after finding him liable for sexually abusing her in the 1990s and defaming her in a different statement than those that prompted the current case before Judge Kaplan.“This is not his first rodeo,” said Katherine B. Forrest, a former colleague of Judge Kaplan’s on the Manhattan federal bench. “He is going to be quite careful and thoughtful about how he handles this situation.”“I’m sure he’s thinking about when he draws lines, how he draws lines, what the lines mean and what agenda it plays into,” Ms. Forrest added.Judge Kaplan has already ruled that Mr. Trump and his lawyers may not contest the jury’s finding last May that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll or that his statements about her were defamatory.But if Mr. Trump is again disruptive or even removed from the courtroom, the trial should be able to continue, said Michael B. Mukasey, who served as a Manhattan federal judge for nearly two decades. Mr. Mukasey said Judge Kaplan would have an obligation to ensure the jury is not influenced by any extraneous matter.“He would want to make sure that they understand that neither Trump’s antics, nor whatever results from them, is evidence,” Mr. Mukasey said, “because they take an oath to decide the case based only on the evidence and his instructions on the law.”In the state court, Justice Engoron, 74, also has long experience. A former cabdriver and aspiring musician, he makes frequent jokes from the bench and maintains a cordiality with lawyers and witnesses alike.He is a character outside the courtroom too — he once submitted a story to The New York Times about approaching the singer Art Garfunkel, informing him “My name’s Art, too” — and subsequently being mocked by a friend.But Mr. Trump and his lawyers have appeared to test Justice Engoron’s good humor as the judge seeks to determine whether the former president is liable for violating state laws by inflating his net worth, as Ms. James, the attorney general, has argued.When one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Christopher M. Kise, said that the former president wanted to speak during closing arguments this month, Justice Engoron said he would permit that as long as Mr. Trump agreed to the conditions that bind any lawyer: to stick to the facts and the law.The former president did not agree to do so. In open court, Mr. Kise renewed his request, prompting a sigh from Justice Engoron. “This is not how it should have been done,” he said.Still, he let Mr. Trump speak, and the former president used his five minutes to attack Ms. James and the judge.One condition Justice Engoron set, however, appeared to be effective: He told Mr. Trump that if he attacked the judge’s staff members — violating a gag order — he would be removed from the courtroom and fined at least $50,000.During his diatribe, Mr. Trump refrained from attacking any staff members.Kate Christobek More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      E Jean. Carroll’s Lawyers Ask That Trump Not Make Defamation Trial a ‘Circus’

      by

      The writer next week will seek a second round of damages from the former president for his denials that he sexually assaulted her.A lawyer for the writer E. Jean Carroll, whose latest defamation lawsuit against Donald J. Trump is scheduled for trial next week in Manhattan, asked a judge Friday to ensure that if the former president testifies, that he does not stray beyond the narrow issue in the case, with the goal of “turning this trial into a circus.”“If Mr. Trump appears at this trial, whether as a witness or otherwise,” the lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, wrote in a letter, “his recent statements and behavior strongly suggest that he will seek to sow chaos.”In the letter, which comes just four days before jury selection is to begin in Federal District Court, Ms. Kaplan cited Mr. Trump’s continued derogatory public comments about Ms. Carroll and his behavior in another case involving him this week.On Thursday, Mr. Trump attended the final day of trial in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against him, where — after the judge allowed him to argue on his own behalf — he attacked the attorney general, Letitia James, called himself the victim of fraud and assailed the judge to his face. Afterward, Mr. Trump told reporters that he also planned to attend Ms. Carroll’s trial.“I’m going to explain I don’t know who the hell she is,” he said. “I have no idea.”But the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, has already ruled that a jury’s verdict last May in an earlier civil trial, which found that Mr. Trump was liable for sexually assaulting Ms. Carroll in a department store dressing room in the 1990s and had later defamed her, will carry over to the trial next week. The judge thus has limited the trial to one issue — what damages, if any, Mr. Trump must pay Ms. Carroll for defaming her on a separate occasion in 2019 when he called her allegation “totally false.”The request by Ms. Carroll’s lawyer to constrain Mr. Trump, 77, comes as he has lashed out at her while moving among courthouses and political stops in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. On a single day recently, he issued more than 40 derisive posts about her on his Truth Social website, and last weekend, while campaigning in Iowa, he accused her of fabricating her claim and called the judge in the case a “radical Democrat in New York.”Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, declined to comment on Ms. Kaplan’s letter, citing trial publicity rules. The judge said Friday that Mr. Trump had until Sunday to file a response, and Ms. Habba said she would be doing so.In her letter, Ms. Kaplan (who is not related to the judge) asked that he admonish Mr. Trump about the limited damages issue before the jury. She also asked that he require Mr. Trump to state on the record and under oath, out of the jury’s presence, that he understands that certain facts have been established.“The court’s recent rulings leave no doubt about what is permissible and what is off-limits,” Ms. Kaplan wrote. “Mr. Trump cannot testify that he did not sexually assault Ms. Carroll. He cannot claim that he did not rape her, or did not know her, or had never seen her before. He cannot question or attack her motives for revealing that he had assaulted her. He cannot say that he was defending himself from a false accusation.”The letter asked that Mr. Trump acknowledge he understands and accepts “all of the limits that the court has imposed on his testimony” and will act in accordance.Mr. Trump has been attacking Ms. Carroll, 80, since 2019, when she first accused him of raping her in a book excerpt that appeared in New York magazine. She has sued him twice, and in the first case to go to trial last May, the jury awarded Ms. Carroll damages of just over $2 million for sexually abusing her and nearly $3 million for defaming her, in 2022, when he called her claim “a complete con job” and a hoax.Because the judge found that Mr. Trump’s statements in 2019 were “substantially the same” as those that prompted the defamation award last May, there was no need to revisit the underlying facts of the assault.Ms. Kaplan in her letter included a transcript of Mr. Trump’s remarks on Thursday to the judge who is deciding the civil fraud trial, in which the former president called the state’s case “a political witch hunt” and declared he was innocent.“It takes little imagination to think that Mr. Trump is gearing up for a similar performance here — only this time, in front of a jury,” Ms. Kaplan wrote.Susan C. Beachy More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fox News and Trump Go Live Wednesday for First Time in 2 Years

      by

      A town hall in Iowa on Wednesday is the network’s first live interview with the former president in nearly two years, the latest twist in a long-running drama.One of television’s longest-running soap operas is about to start a new chapter.Donald J. Trump has not appeared for a live interview on Fox News since April 2022, a nearly two-year stretch of chilliness between the former president and the channel whose airwaves he once relied on to cement his status atop the American right.In that period, all of Mr. Trump’s Fox News interviews were pretaped, a notable precaution for a network that paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit fueled by the former president’s mendacious claims about the 2020 election. That changes on Wednesday, when Mr. Trump will appear live on the network for a town hall in Des Moines ahead of the Iowa caucuses.The relationship between Mr. Trump and the Rupert Murdoch-owned network has featured more drama than a season of “Real Housewives.” But Wednesday’s event is not only a turning point and a potential ratings winner for Fox News: It is also the former president’s first live interview on any major news network since he went on CNN last May, an event that drew harsh criticism for the volume and velocity of his unfiltered false claims.Mr. Trump has not exactly been silenced. He refused the invitations of several networks to participate in live Republican primary debates. And he has agreed to numerous pretaped interviews, including an appearance on NBC in September that also prompted complaints from viewers who berated the network for providing him a platform.His relationship with Fox News, however, is especially complicated. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago when parts of the network seemed to be moving on.Back in 2022, Fox News snubbed Mr. Trump’s rallies while offering admiring coverage to a rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. After Mr. Trump announced in November 2022 that he would again run for president, the network kept him off its airwaves for a full five months. When Mr. Trump did return, for a taped interview last March with Sean Hannity, he received a cool reception from other Fox hosts; one network contributor called his appearance “absolutely horrific.”The slights angered Mr. Trump, who has harbored resentment toward Fox over its early projection of Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr. on election night in 2020. Over the past year, the former president has lobbed crude insults at Mr. Murdoch and denounced Fox as “fake news” and “hostile” in posts on Truth Social, his preferred social media platform. He has also grumbled to allies that the network erred in settling the defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, saying it offered ammunition to other potential litigants.In an interview, Bret Baier, Fox News’s chief political anchor, who is moderating the Wednesday event alongside the anchor Martha MacCallum, did not shy away from acknowledging the volatility of the relationship.“We’re one Truth Social post away from some different feeling,” he said.Despite the wariness, both sides found reasons to agree to Wednesday’s town hall.Judging by his poll numbers, many conservatives remain enthralled by Mr. Trump, and keeping the potential Republican nominee at arm’s length would erode Fox News’s credibility with a core audience. While Mr. Trump has told confidants that he believes Fox News has lost some influence with Republican voters, it remains the highest-rated cable network and home to influential conservatives like Mr. Hannity and Jesse Watters.Furthermore, the town hall gives Mr. Trump a chance to dunk on both his presidential rivals and one of his media bêtes noires: CNN.CNN had previously announced that it would sponsor a Republican debate in Iowa on the same night, in the same city, at the same time (9 p.m. Eastern). Mr. DeSantis and Nikki Haley, Mr. Trump’s closest rivals in state polls, will be at that debate, but Mr. Trump boycotted. Fox’s town hall allows him to siphon away attention and potentially deliver a TV ratings victory over CNN — which would also please Fox News.Given the rough-and-tumble nature of a presidential campaign, Wednesday’s telecast is unlikely to represent a lasting détente. One person with direct knowledge of interactions between the Trump camp and Fox News, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the relationship remained chilly.The televisions on Mr. Trump’s plane once constantly aired Fox News, but that is no longer the case, the person said. The former president often requests to watch Mr. Hannity’s program, but sometimes prefers Newsmax, particularly its host Greg Kelly, an old acquaintance from New York political circles. Mr. Trump remains a fan of Mr. Hannity — and of Mr. Watters and Maria Bartiromo — but he has soured on the “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy, whom he recently described as “not nice like he should be.”Mr. Baier said he had studiously courted Mr. Trump in recent weeks, pitching him on the idea of a town hall over the phone and at least once in person at his Florida mansion, Mar-a-Lago.“It’s not easy,” he said of the efforts required to coax Mr. Trump into an interview. He said he had encouraged the former president to take “tough but fair” questions in a live setting.“This is getting to the playoffs,” Mr. Baier said. “This is a time when voters need to see him live, in person, when it happens.”So what happens if Mr. Trump repeats on live TV his baseless claim that the 2020 election was rigged?“We’re ready to deal with it,” Mr. Baier said, noting that he disputed Mr. Trump’s claims when the subject arose at their pretaped interview last June. “But if he’s spending all of his town hall time dealing with 2020, and not talking about what he wants to do as president, he’s got other issues.” (At the time, Mr. Trump was not thrilled about Mr. Baier’s real-time fact-checking, calling it “nasty.”)For Mr. Baier, the next person on his list for a live, unfiltered interview is President Biden. “We’ve had a request in every two weeks since South Carolina, when candidate Joe Biden won the primary,” he said. “We would love to do a town hall with the president. We would do that in a heartbeat.”Jonathan Swan More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Unsettling Truth at the Heart of the Giuliani Case

      by

      No sooner did a jury deliver a nearly $150 million defamation judgment against the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani than he went out and again started smearing the two Georgia election workers at the center of the case. Within days, he filed for bankruptcy, shielding himself in the near term from having to surrender whatever assets he has to his creditors.His brazen thumbing of his nose at the jury and the legal system laid bare some unsettling truths about justice. Defamation law is one of the few tools that lawyers have to hold people accountable for using lies to destroy reputations and to deter wrongdoing. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, county clerks, election officials and other public servants targeted by politically motivated conspiracy theories like the Big Lie have used defamation lawsuits to try to clear their names and correct the public record.But in a hyperpartisan era when the incentives to tell lies about your political opponents can seemingly outweigh the risks, is defamation law still up to the task? And if admitted liars like Mr. Giuliani can avoid having to pay up, what does accountability even look like now?Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the two election workers who sued Mr. Giuliani for falsely claiming that they stole the 2020 election in Georgia for Joe Biden, will probably only ever see pennies on the dollar of the full amount that a Washington, D.C., jury awarded them.There are a few procedural hurdles to clear: The bankruptcy proceedings will hinge on whether a judge decides that Mr. Giuliani’s actions were “willful and malicious.” (If they were, he’ll still have to pay, even in bankruptcy.) Then there’s the question of whether he has the money to pay his debts. According to his bankruptcy petition, he has $1 million to $10 million in assets — nowhere close to what he’d need to clear the roughly $153 million he says he owes in total. (That number doesn’t include ongoing lawsuits against him that could also lead to financial settlements.) Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss could negotiate a settlement with him or choose to pursue a percentage of his assets and earnings for the rest of his working life.Recouping any money in a defamation judgment can take time. After juries in Connecticut and Texas found Infowars founder Alex Jones liable for more than $1.4 billion for spreading lies and conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook school shooting, the families of victims who sued him and his businesses have spent the past year fighting him in bankruptcy. Only after a judge ruled that Mr. Jones’s conduct had met the “willful and malicious” standard did he finally propose a greatly reduced settlement of $5.5 million per year for five years and then a percentage of his business income for the next five. (The Sandy Hook families, who filed their suits nearly six years ago, have offered their own plan to liquidate all of Mr. Jones’s existing assets and to pursue his future earnings to collect on their jury verdict.)But victory for plaintiffs in cases like these is not limited to money. A trial gives victims of viral disinformation a chance to confront their tormentor in a court of law, where facts and procedures still matter, offering them a real sense of catharsis and vindication. Especially in cases that involve major news events, defamation suits can also help correct the public record. The trial in Freeman v. Giuliani not only proved that Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss had not done any of the criminal acts Mr. Giuliani alleged; it exhaustively debunked one of the biggest conspiracy theories to emerge from the 2020 presidential election.Tens of thousands of articles and TV segments amplified the trial’s findings to a massive audience. “This case was never about making Ruby and Shaye rich,” said Michael J. Gottlieb, the lead lawyer for the two women. “Of course, we wanted them to be compensated. But it was about accountability and establishing a public record of the truth about what happened at State Farm Arena in November 2020.”On a societal level, the real hope for these defamation cases is that over time, as more liars are brought low by their actions and held accountable in court, politicians and political operatives will pause before spreading disinformation and, slowly, this country will move toward a better, safer political discourse. For now, that seems overly optimistic. The twisted incentives created by extreme polarization and a fragmented media landscape might lead a young up-and-comer in conservative (or liberal, for that matter) politics to traffic in disinformation and conspiracy theories if that is the quickest way to fame, fortune and influence — consequences be damned.Our society counts on defamation judgments to draw a line between truth and falsity, and “we don’t imagine that there will routinely be recalcitrant defendants who will feel the incentive to lie to audiences that are eager to accept those lies is greater than the incentive to abide by the rule of law,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a University of Utah law professor and media expert. “Our libel system doesn’t really envision those dynamics.” Libel law itself may be outdated — too slow or too weak to reckon with the realities of modern politics.But there is reason to hope. As the Giuliani case shows, deterrence can take many forms. When Mr. Giuliani uttered more lies about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss shortly after the verdict, they filed a new lawsuit in the same court, seeking an injunction to prevent him from continuing to defame them. If successful, that case could be the strongest protection they have from getting drawn into the spotlight once more.Even without an injunction, now that a court has ruled that Mr. Giuliani defamed the two women with actual malice — meaning he knowingly or recklessly made the false statements in question — media outlets large and small may be hesitant to give him a platform. Even if the judgment doesn’t chasten Mr. Giuliani, it will almost surely make networks like Fox News and One America News think twice before they put him on the air.More than updating defamation law or passing new legislation, the way to send a signal to future Rudy Giulianis and Alex Joneses is by defending victims of widespread lies — and the larger truth — at scale. One of the legal organizations that represented Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss, Protect Democracy, is attempting to do just that. The group is also representing them in a separate lawsuit against the right-wing blog The Gateway Pundit and is representing a Pennsylvania postal worker smeared by Project Veritas, a county recorder in Arizona attacked by the Republican candidate Kari Lake and a voter in Georgia accused of being a “ballot mule” by Dinesh D’Souza.These cases will test whether our legal system can evolve to meet the challenges posed by our viral era. But at the least, Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss have shown that you don’t have to be rich or powerful to achieve justice.Andy Kroll (@AndyKroll) is a reporter at ProPublica and the author of “A Death on W Street: The Murder of Seth Rich and the Age of Conspiracy.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More